Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Yeager, Defendant/Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ronald-yeager-defendantappellant-13389
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13389
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Ronald+Yeager%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Yeager, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  73179
Handdown Date:  06/02/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant:  Rosalynn Koch
Counsel for Respondent:  Glennon P. Fogarty
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Knaup Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of heroin with 
intent to distribute, in violation of section 195.211 RSMo 1994, on which he was sentenced as a persistent offender under 
section 558.016 RSMo 1994 to fifteen years imprisonment.
No   jurisprudential   purpose   would   be   served   by   a   written   opinion   reciting   the   detailed   facts   and   restating   the 
principles of law.  However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting 
forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.